My USA Today op-ed: Science and religion aren’t friends

I got tired of Uncle Karl and those of his ilk filling the pages of USA Today with accommodationist tripe, so I wrote my own op-ed: “Science and religion aren’t friends.” It’s up now though it’ll appear in the paper tomorrow (Monday). It pulls no punches.

The fact that I can even write a 1200-word piece on this topic and have it published in such a widely-read venue is a testament to the success of Gnu Atheism.

UPDATE: The piece appears to be one of the 5 most popular on the site today (Brett Favre’s peccadilloes are in the lead). That’s further testimony to the societal change produced by Gnu Atheists. The piece, after all, was written on the shoulders of giants: Harris, Hitchens, Dennett, and Dawkins, who softened up society for body blows like this. I’ve also had a look at the comments, which are surprisingly heartening,—further testimony to the presence of a large but normally silent group of American atheists.

Good to get something so forthright out where it will be seen by many. If I have a quibble, it’s my unfamiliarity with the notion that Jews regard Jesus as a prophet. There may have been some who did so, but I’m not aware that he holds any such position in any version of the religion per se.

We really do need more people stating the anti-accomodationist position without pulling punches.

I’ve the conjecture that “maybe Jesus was a prophet” from people who claimed to be Jewish, so I suppose it’s within the range of Jewish religious opinion. It’s the “Jesus is God” assertion that just that contradicts basic Judaism.

Actually, I think practically everything is within the range of Jewish religious opinion, since most Jews I’ve known seem to be freethinkers.

In Orthodox Judaism (in which I was raised) Jesus is considered to be a heretic. The Talmud calls Jesus wicked and an “enticer” to idolatry, for which the punishment is death. Basically he was up there with Hitler in the list of history’s worst dudes (crazy, I know).

I’m also tired of pulling punches. It hasn’t done any good for many years. Maybe this will convince more fence sitters to look at the real evidence in this matter and not just following what they’ve been fed since childhood. Keep up the good work.

As for getting it published, having a bestseller that has won lots of awards presumably helps a lot. Jerry is a Name and a Star so even USA Today is happy to have him dressing up the paper.

And of course that’s exactly why the gnu atheists piss off the old theists – they keep having bestsellers and so getting into big newspapers with their pesky unapologetic frank noneuphemistic aytheeizm.

Correct, while Muslims see Jesus as a prophet, Jews do not. Under most standard forms of Jewish theology prophecy ended at the beginning of the second Temple period (around 300 BCE). Some Jews say that they regard Jesus as a “wise teacher” or something similar, but this is really limited primarily to the US. This is really something that has been mainly adopted by Conservative and Reform Jews in the US as a way of being somewhat more polite to Christians (policy some sort of Stockholm Syndrome?). There’s no way that any mainstream Jewish group considers Jesus as a prophet.

Frankly, this is a pretty glaring error that a) Coyne should have caught b) should have been caught by editors and fact checkers at US News c) is exactly the sort of thing that leaves one vulnerable to the courtier’s reply. Not cool.

The Courtier’s Reply is often good shorthand to use, but I’m not sure it’s applicable in this case. Meaning: the Courtier’s Reply gets used even when every stated fact is correct in order to claim that the argument is lacking because the author has not studied theology sufficiently to make a rejection. In the case of Jerry’s slip-up with Jesus’ status among believing Jews, he has made an error that doesn’t or shouldn’t detract from his main argument (how Jews regard Jesus is a completely peripheral issue to his main thrust), but will be used as an excuse by anyone who prefers not to engage with his main argument. We’re all only human, even Jerry, but we’ve got to try to make our cases as watertight as possible. That said, I don’t think it’ll finally matter a lot either way. Those who will use it to disqualify the whole piece would never permit themselves to look at the argument honestly anyway.

If one mistake in an op-ed by Jerry is damaging to the Gnu Atheist position, where is religion after all the contradictions in its scriptures?

I’m not arguing that the Courtier’s Reply is valid in this context (if I did would I have labeled it the Courtier’s Reply?) The point is that it leaves Jerry vulnerable to that reply. That’s an observation about rhetoric, not an observation about actual logical validity.

(I think there are probably more contexts where something resembling the courtier’s reply might be more valid than many New Atheists think, but this isn’t one of those circumstances.)

Nonstampcollector underlines how a mistake like this reinforces the real point.

“You want to talk about evidence? If I understand it correctly you guys unquestioningly believe in an ancient book that says some carpenter named Moses dies and came to life at a Christmas party, or something.”

“WHAT!? It was Jesus nailed to a cross at Easter!!”

“… Okay, I heard you—I was wrong. Why won’t you admit you were wrong about <litany …>”

I want to point out one minor issue, in case this gets adapted/reprinted elsewhere. I think you can’t use the fact that most scientists are atheists as evidence that science and faith are incompatible. (For the same reason that defenders of faith can’t use Francis Collins as evidence that they’re compatible.)

At best, it’s just a correlation, and although we all suspect we know why most scientists are atheists, the correlation alone isn’t enough.

Sweet like chocolate, Jerry! I’ve FB’d this and blogged it to my pals in Northern Ireland. If ever there was a place that needed to hear this, NI is it. My old Prof of Genetics has just set up a UK Intelligent Design centre in Glasgow. Oh, the shame!

[Incidentally, there are some Jews who are rather keen to get Jesus reinstated as a properly recognised Jewish prophet. Good luck to ’em – I can’t see it happening myself, much as I regard myself as a *Christian* atheist😉]

“Many Christians believe that if you don’t accept Jesus as savior, you’ll burn in hell for eternity. Muslims hold the exact opposite: Those who see Jesus as God’s son are the ones who will roast. Jews see Jesus as a prophet, but not the messiah.”

This op-ed is something we should all bookmark and hang on to, as it explains the heart of the issue elegantly and, indeed, without pulling punches. I’ll be forwarding it to a couple people, that’s for sure. Thanks Jerry.

In the use of the word “truth” to mean “scientific fact” there is an assumption: that nature is going to show itself to us the way it is, no more no less. Though it’s not the tired mantra “What we see is what there is”, but rather “All that there is can eventually be seen”.

Never let the woo-meisters steal perfectly good words like ‘true’ and ‘truth’. Just be very specific in what you mean about them. Science takes an epistemologically pragmatist meaning of ‘true’, which I think can be understood easily if we think of an arrow flying true to its target.

If writing about science will be so PC (Philosophically Correct) to avoid the words “true” and “truth” — then you concede ownership of those words to religion.

I support Coyne claiming the words “true” and “truth” — e.g., Why Evolution Is True. My head snapped back when I read this one sentence: [Science and religion] “are different forms of inquiry, with only one, science, equipped to find real truth.” I felt the shock value that sentence will bring to the American Christian public that speaks and writes about Christianity being “the Truth” with a capital “T”.

Tomorrow morning the American Christians I know are going to read that sentence and spit their coffee. Coyne pwns their pet word! It’s going to rock them back on their heels, and they’ll need to think. Maybe they’ll scurry to wedge chairs under their doorknobs to keep these ideas from coming into their houses. But that much will be progress — to have them on the defensive — and a sign of how far the Gnus have come.

I don’t think we should feel bullied into giving up on using ordinary English words like “true” and “truth” (or “belief”, “believe”, and “beliefs”, to take another example that is sometimes raised). These words have down-to-earth meanings and we’ll sound like idiots if we go around trying to avoid using them. The religious do not have a monopoly on these words.

Wow, Jerry read my mind. I was thinking that all of those social scientists publishing surveys saying “OMG, less than 100% of scientists are atheists. Religion FTW!” could easily be rebutted by someone simply using the same data to make the opposite point. Good job Jerry.

That was an excellent article Jerry, and you didn’t even pull a Giberson and put in arrogant dismissals of other people as being naive etc. Karl Gibberish’s accusing others of being strident and naive seems to be a Jungian projection (not that I support Jung – like Freud I treat him solely as a source of jokes).

When the new patient was settled comfortably on the couch, the pychiatrist began his therapy session, “I’m not aware of your problem,” the doctor said. “So perhaps, you should start at the very beginning.”
“Of course.” replied the patient. “In the beginning, I created the Heavens and the Earth…”

Interesting how so many of us have our own little, minor quibbles, which don’t match each others…For me, it’s the statement, “We now know that the universe did not require a creator;” probably because I don’t want to find myself trying to answer how science has proved this.😀 (I’m not even entirely sure I understand Hawking’s reasoning. But why should I? [Prayer: god, please give me a brain like Hawking’s. I’ll let everyone know if it’s answered.])

Yes, I am uncomfortable with that as well. To say we “know” that the universe does not require a creator, which I do not think we can really say, Hawking not withstanding, reduces the credibility of statements about things we do know, at least in the minds of those who do not know.

Argument from authority? Hawking did not say “I am terribly famous and ever so clever and so you must take my word for it, the universe didn’t need god to light the fuse.” He (along with Mlodinow) wrote an entire book explaining exactly how and why the evidence leads them to that conclusion.

While I'd be happy to be able to rule out deism (and maybe we will someday, who knows?), and while I find it simply illogical to jump to a supernatural explanation after explaining "all the rest" scientifically, I also think it's not too difficult to coexist with…No claims can be made about some putative non-natural entity that just sort of kick-started the universe & then disappeared…

Now that’s a better argument, but there’s still a quibble. Hawking did not argue that gods do not exist, merely that science has provided explanations that eliminate any need to invoke gods as a/the cause of the universe.

As Jerry suggested, actually arguing against gods, no matter the basis, makes no more sense than arguing against leprechauns. To do so would be misplacing the burden of proof.

I would argue that there was never a reason to invoke god even in the absence of H-M’s book. Absence of a scientific explanation is not a reason to invoke god–it is simply a statement of our ignorance.

Yes, but the original quibble was not about the question ‘do gods exist’ but rather, whether “we know that the universe did not require a creator” is as solidly supported as, say, evolution by natural selection…which was mentioned in the same paragraph, and thus might seem to give the two equal worth.

I haven’t read Hawking’s latest, nor do I understand M-theory very well, but I think his previous argument that the universe need not have a beginning was pretty solid. There’s no need to invoke a “creator”.

Of course scientists and naturalists are pretty much always going to prefer plausible natural explanations for things over supernatural ones.

Great op-ed all around! It was positively satisfying to see religious belief in gods compared to superstitious belief in leprechauns in the USA Today online. My favorite line was the one about how religions are allowed to claim to know the truth yet are actually completely unable to find it–leading to all kinds of immoral/evil behaviors by their adherents.

Just kidding. I am still a bit amazed at seeing this in this venue, at this early date. Check your calendar just in case this requires a bit of follow-up. Sometimes things like this go *pif*, and sometimes they go kerfuffle-zizz-kabow-gaboom. It drew together enough salient points to do the latter, methinks. Good job.

I may be alone, here, but I don’t find this all that surprising. Media’s primary raison d’être is to sell their product, and nothing whips up sales like fanning a little controversy. When you throw in that Jerry’s a Big Name, it sounds like quintessential editor bait to me.

There are tens of thousands of religions and sects and there have been many more through the eons. If any one of them are true, then the rest are wrong on some fundamental level. Of course there is no evidence that there is such a thing as divine truths nor any evidence of invisible beings. Until or unless there is such evidence, I don’t think rational people need to concern themselves with claims made about such things.

Should there ever be actual evidence for the supernatural, I am sure it will spread rapidly so that scientists can test, refine, and hone the information like they have with everything else we have come to know about reality.

It would not be justified to reject some claim outrightly; the theories have been very recently published and any comments without going through the theories would not also be justified. Please go through the theories then pass comments.

Thank you and thank goodness for you, Shafiqifs! Finally some objectivity! Clearly you are a student of the enlightenment and lover of reason.

Yes, thank you for asking; I have tested many of the theories dictated by scripture with a special emphasis in Islamic theory – the religion I was born into. My tests began very young in life because I, like you, am a lover of truth and have been from a young age. I quickly came to realize at a very tender age that many of the theories like fresh water and salt water not mixing (stated in the Quran, but you knew that) were simply not true (and of course you knew that too). It did not take long to realize that many of the claims made by the Quran lacked any kind of evidence and were stabilized and maintained through authority, tradition, and dogma. I left that ridiculous, and dangerous, belief system and am glad I did.

But alas, Shafiqif, just like you, not only was the truth important to me but also I could not bear the thought of accepting something on blind faith alone and then accusing others of not having looked into the structure of their belief system. What a hypocrite I would be, how base in character! You and I are truly kindred spirits and I thank you for you refreshing post.

Science is truth and truth requires thorough investigation keeping every possible option open. Yes I have two masters degrees; one in physics and second involves boilogical science and have upto date information about these two fields wherein philosophy of life and matter is involved. Let you read the articles and the book mentioned in the articles and I am confident you will have no doubt that science has been misled by Darwin and Einstein.

I think I can see where religious apologists will attack you on this piece.
First they will criticize the claim that you are 100% certain that there is no God.
Then they will attack the claim that science can answer every single question.
Finally they will maintain that the claim that every single religious person is a stupid fundamentalist is quite simply wrong.

I downloaded the first one. One doesn’t need to go further than the first few paragraphs to see that it is utter drivel. The author is as well informed about science as most people here are about medieval Mongolian folk-dancing.

Apart from anything else, the paper has no reference list, and the only references I could find on a quick scan of the text were to … wait for it … Harun Yahya.

Jolly good show, Jerry. I think it’s important that the Gnus continue to make use of old media. That’s still the best way to reach people who have little/no/passing interest in science and atheisms and stuff.

As usual, nice article, Jerry. I hate the idea of religion claiming the moral “why” as their domain. They’ve had thousands of years to refine society’s morals and have reached, without the aid of enlightenment secular morals, the point where instead of killing your daughter when she’s raped, throwing acid in her face or convincing her to kill herself.

Would the world be better if we gave our moral philosophy over to science and reason? I honestly don’t know, since I don’t know all the variables. Perhaps there are deeper differences between Denmark and Afghanistan that I don’t know of that could confound such a prediction. But what I do know is religion has been an utter failure and should be rejected. Religion doesn’t inspire good works, humanity does.

The author states, “We now know that the universe did not require a creator…..Science and faith are fundamentally incompatible, and for precisely the same reason that irrationality and rationality are incompatible.”
=========
And how is this “Science”? The Author makes absolute facts that are not “Prove-able” according to definition of science. What could be possible does not make it so; nor mere conjecture of what is impossible make it true. One must factor in the reality that “Religion” nor “Science” (Man’s Understanding) are right 100% of the time; as such, each side can point out fringe explanations and accepted theories from either side to refute, but those arguments will never prove the other’s fundamental position is absolutely false….at least not until it’s too late for both – when earthly life ceases.

“How is this science?”, you ask? It’s science in the same way that we can say that the appearance of the sun moving across the sky does not need gods as an explanation. It’s science in the same way that we can say, “we know that the universe did not require magic or fairies.” It’s science in the same way that we can say that demons are not necessary to explain bad things.

And this comes from a Stephen Hawking quote– so he’s the scientist you want to aim your verbiage at.

Since we have plausible natural explanations, supported by models and evidence, for the universe that do not require any “creator”, no creator is required.

See — it’s easy! It need not be “Prove-able”, just supported by reason and evidence.

Most religious doctrines that can be tested have failed those tests and are therefore “disproven”. Science strives to create such tests for itself, whereas religion generally tries to avoid them. That’s one of many reasons why science is superior to religion as a path toward knowledge.

I read your Op-Ed and I have a 3rd option for you. I see no reason that science and religion are incompatible. The issue is “organized” religion.

My search for the truth started with the premise that no organized religion has a monopoly on the truth. But that there is truth is all of them.

After many years my conclusions are that a God exists, that we live forever or effectively so, and that we choose to come to earth and inhabit earthly bodies in a quest for enlightenment.

This equates to doing “hard time” to speed up the process, but the fact of reincarnation is optional for us. That goes a long way towards explaining why wars, famines etc exist. Without trials, people do not grow emotionally or intellectually.

I think there are yet undiscovered scientific explanations on how this is possible in terms of energy, and wavelengths but there is little doubt in my mind that this is the real truth or a close enough version of it.

As a Christian, I thought Mr. Coyne’s book on “Why Evolution is True” was quite convincing, and wonderfully free of the type of atheistic cant that his USA Today article contains.

I feel there is some possibility evolution is true; God-guided or planned, if it is. But evolution does not disprove the existence of God, it merely disproves the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. Even the great Christian apologist C.S. Lewis felt that the Genesis creation account was “mythopoetic”, as I do.

Yet the evidence for God is everywhere. Coyne is mistaken if he thinks we are believing something that cannot be proven. God shows himself in various ways. Certainly the strong sense of right and wrong most human beings possess is one. I know evolutionists think they are going to prove that sense is a product of evolution, and they will prove that, to themselves, because they don’t want to see the truth.

Also, if you pay attention, God shows himself in the circumstances of your life. To many coincidences happen to be coincidence.

This format does not allow for an exhaustive treatment of the reasons for belief in the existence of God. If those of you who are atheists are indeed open-minded, I would recommend the salutary exercise of reading opinions outside your belief system. Certainly read C.S. Lewis (“Mere Christianity”, “A Mind Awake”, others), Tim Keller (“The Reason for God”), and Lee Strobel’s “The Case for…” series.

You may find something you are actually looking for. At the very least, you will find that the arguments advanced by most atheists against the existence of God are not terribly good ones.

All you have done is wave your hand over a collection of familiar apologetic writings and provided us with your opinion (which many of us do not share) on how morality is walled off from scientific investigation while overlooking how remarkable coincidences occur often because there are so many things happening all the time. You could at least tell us what arguments against the existence of God are “not terribly good”, such as…?

Many of us here were once vested in our inculcated religions. I assume you are a Christian by your apologetic choices and wonder how you live with yourself in certainty that your version of God is true or, for that matter, your version of Christianity is true. I’ve read all you say and think all is a product of either skilled rhetoric (Lewis and Keller) or dishonest scholarship (Strobel). Strobel has been falsified very well in Robert Price’s new book “A Case Against the Case for Christ”. You sound like most people I’ve known within the Christian Church; confidence bordering on smugness relative to the mythic preference you’ve adopted to lend meaning to the unknown. If you are seriously interested in Philosophy of Religion or advanced theology I’d suggest you bring something more serious than the latest pop-theology or the tired “Moral Law” argument (Did the Christian Church KNOW right from wrong when they burned witches in Salem or did the theological over-ride compromise their in-dwelt moral mechanism)? At least give us the benefit of the doubt and cite Plantinga’s Free Will defense, Alston’s Epistemology of Religious Experince or Craig’s appropriation of the Kaalam Cosmological argument. Lewis, Keller and Strobel – thin gruel indeed. I doubt you’ve investigated or understood any atheist arguments and don’t have a moral philosophy outside of your church community’s insular agreements (I base this on your choice of Christian apologetics not, on the fact you are a believer).

Some of you may think that a peccadillo is a small sin or moral vice, or something of the kind. It is, of course, actually a cross between a peccary and an armadillo, and makes a fine pet. Maybe Jerry should buy some to go with his cats, and then he’d be as famous as that Brett Favre guy … or maybe USA Today could just publish an article about the cats.

I have a mailing list of several dozen people who are interested in skepticism and related topics. I recently sent the list a copy of your op-ed piece, “Science and religion aren’t friends.” One person on the list is the token accomodationist. He sent me a return comment that I am forwarding to you (below) hoping it might give you a chuckle. Please feel free to respond to it if it is worth your while. The writer signed his name.

Thanks,
Terry Sandbek
P.S. Sorry for the two earlier non-comments. I used RoboForm for filling in the blanks and it insisted on sending them prematurely without my comments.
—————————–

My, my, Professor Coyne sure doth protest too much!

Same old arguments.

There will be peace in the valley only when extremists at both ends truly understand and accept where those at other end are coming from. Using one’s own metric to measure the worth of someone else’s world view is folly.

All this religion-bashing is counter-productive if the objective is to get the theists to see the light. However, if atheists are serious about ridding the world of religion, then I suggest a two-pronged attack:

Prong One: Top-down. Atheists meet with the leader of the free world and convert Barack Hussein Obama from Christianity to atheism (or at least agnosticism). He publicly proclaims his conversion, then his disciples do likewise and spread the word.

Prong Two: Bottom-up. Pairs of atheists go door-to-door throughout the nation proselytizing, handing out copies of The God Delusion, and leading neighborhood weekly group study meetings. The best converts are trained to be local leaders of the atheist movement. Atheism spreads house by house, neighborhood by neighborhood.

If something akin to the above does not take place, and if the rise in secularism does not accelerate, then, according to my calculations, atheism will not be the dominant ism before we enter the next ice age!

Your article titled “Science and Religion Aren’t Friends” in the October 11th issue of USA Today was positively brilliant. I can not think of any other published viewpoint so truthfully stated and remarkably easy to comprehend. I believe in science. I believe that the world’s continued existence will rely on the backs of scientific research and discovery. Thank you ever so much for speaking the truth about science and religion.
Rick Rutel

I gotta hand it to the non-believers. Their faith in science, and their determination to turn others from their personal beliefs is admirable. CONVERT THE BELEIVERS!

While you condemn people of religious faith with such fervor, you sound just like them. The only difference is WHERE your faith is, not whether or not you have any.

Of course more people have murdered and died because of religion, but at least they make a stand. Scientists, on the other hand, make it more efficient to kill, then stand back and observe the results, all the while snikering at the motives of the fools that use the technology that they provided.

I will show you proof of God when you show me proof of a black hole, or a quark, or any other unproven scientific theory. Of course I mean undenible video evidence.

Does the scientific explanation of a miracle make that miracle any less miraculous?

I guess every belief has it’s radicals that make no room for other ideas or thoughts. Most of the postings on this board remind me of the Christian crusades and the imbeciles of the Spanish Inquisitions as well as the morons who flew planes into buildings.

Opus:
“I will show you proof of God when you show me proof of a black hole, or a quark, or any other unproven scientific theory. Of course I mean undenible video evidence.”

I take it then that you have undeniable video evidence of a god, but are strangely electing to not reveal it until Jerry dances to your tune?
Why not reveal this truly Earth-shattering video evidence at once?

I am astonished that as an apparently educated scintist and ex-believer Mr. Coyne makes no distinction between God and the Church, no refernce to the historic multitude of ‘councils’ through which the early Church (Church officials and monarchs with some very ungodly agendas) imposed a human view on worship and doctrine. There are only 2 commandments – love God with all your heart etc and love your neighbour as yourself. This does not seem unduly difficult, but man’s urge to oraganise and his own agendas have taken us a long way from basics.
How far science is based wholly on the belief that there IS an answer to X is a ‘conviction of things not seen’It seems there is no room for the idea that the language and logic of the spirit and indeed God, is so far removed from from everyday language and logic as to be inaccesible – to those who do not seek it with an open mind. Any difference in expression will inevitably give rise to a different array of questions. Think about it.
Science can dissect a flower, explain how the seed germinates etc, but is all you are left with is bits of dead foliage, a disconnected heap that still does not edxplain ‘Why’. This Universe is like Russian dolls, there is always another layer and even when you have got to the last doll, you can ask, ‘Why all the other dolls?’ – without answering the core question. Science does not have all the answers and different scientific disciplnes/theories do not all agree with each other, though they may work in specified fields.
Scientists do not kill each other over their hypotheses (though professional jealousy has led to some career assinations), but science (with no regard for consequences, or maybe because of them) has created bombs, poisons etc and unreasonably raised the expectations of the less educated about its promised gifts.
One thing, I feel is that in the absence of God we have only ourselves and each other to impress – a sitaution that would suit many scientists, but one that would leave us poorer and much less adventurous than we are. A believer has one fixed point and can cope with every wobble the world throws at them, science is so insecure it has to have the manual for life. I know where I stand and so does He.

Why do believers like this Opus guy continue to parade their irrational defensiveness as argument. Just because you can’t interpret the predictive evidence science provides for quarks and black holes doesn’t mean it isn’t there. Your demand that video evidence be offered is only a testament to the conspiracy ignorance and narcissism enjoy with religious superstition.

Also, your illustration of rationalists standing back and laughing at holy warriors is a strawman. Provide some evidence please.

Lastly, if you are going to argue by analogy amd state that rationalists are like the Spanish Inquisitors then complete the analogy beyond your sense of persecution. Yes, you feel persecuted but it is a fallacy to ascribe responsibility for that feeling to those of us who simply don’t endorse your superstition. To add actions to our disdain by analogy is silly. Unless of course we are organizing tribunals that lead to torture and murder for the illogical like yourself. Don’t worry, we aren’t.

2 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

[…] Jerry Coyne: here is his op-ed on how science and religion are incompatible: […]The religious approach to understanding inevitably results in different faiths holding incompatible “truths” about the world. Many Christians believe that if you don’t accept Jesus as savior, you’ll burn in hell for eternity. Muslims hold the exact opposite: Those who see Jesus as God’s son are the ones who will roast. Jews see Jesus as a prophet, but not the messiah. Which belief, if any, is right? Because there’s no way to decide, religions have duked it out for centuries, spawning humanity’s miserable history of religious warfare and persecution. […]